Rhodes-Vivour files 21 grounds of appeal, challenges tribunal verdict on Sanwo-Olu

The governorship candidate of the Labour Party in Lagos State, Gbadebo-Rhodes Vivour (GRV) has filed his Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeal, Lagos challenging the decision of the State Governorship Tribunal which upheld the return of Gov. Babajide Sanwo-Olu.

The notice of appeal, which was settled by one of his lawyers, Olagbade Benson on behalf of 12 others was filed on Saturday, October 7th and has 21 grounds of appeal.

The 24-paged document has been served on the counsel to the Respondents, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the governor and his deputy, Obafemi Hamzat as well as the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Channels TV’s judiciary correspondent, Shola Soyele obtained a copy of the Notice of Appeal which states, “that the Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the Governorship Election Tribunal Coram Hon. Justice Arum Igyem Ashom, Hon. Justice Mika’ilu Abdullahi and Hon. Justice Igho Patricia Braimoh delivered on 25th September, hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal… against the whole decision of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal except for the Rulings and findings in favour of the Appellant.”

READ ALSO:

• Attack on Israel: Palestine was pushed to the wall — MURIC

• ASUU rejects proposal to include private varsities in TETFund interventions

• Israel vs Hamas war: Nigeria, Brazil, Spain, others evacuate citizens

In ground 1, Rhodes-Vivour said that the Tribunal erred in law when it relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in the petition of Mr. Peter Gregory Obi & Anor. Vs. INEC and Others to strike out the evidence of all his subpoenaed witnesses.

In grounds 2 and 3, the appellants sticking with the issue of its subpoenaed witnesses also claimed that the Tribunal erred in law when it held that the three witnesses, PW7, PW8, and PW9 were not witnesses that fall within the category of witnesses that could be subpoenaed and subsequently discountenanced their oral evidence and documents on the premise that they were not listed as witnesses and their sworn statements did not accompany the Petition and documents front-loaded in line with the Electoral Act 2022.

In grounds 4 & 5, Rhodes-Vivour contended that the Tribunal erred in law when it held that the burden of proof of the specific Oath of Allegiance subscribed to by the Deputy Governor as well as the evidence of his renounced citizenship rests on the Appellant and that exhibits placed before the tribunal on this issue were deemed abandoned.